Sex Offenders Do Change on Risk-Relevant Propensities: Evidence from a Longitudinal Study of the Acute-2007
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Few studies have examined the patterns of change in risk-relevant propensities among sex offenders.Given that existing evidence suggests that offenders' risk of reoffending can change across time, the ability to detect change in measures of risk-relevant propensities would be useful for release, management, and treatment decisions.Of the studies that have examined change in such factors among sex offenders, researchers assumed that the observed scores were without error, making it impossible to disentangle the effects of true change from increased reliability.To date, no studies have examined whether this assumption is correct.The current dissertation advances knowledge by examining change in sexual offending risk using statistical models that separate the effects of measurement error from true change.Two studies were conducted, both using repeated assessments of the Acute-2007 scores for sex offenders on community supervision (Hanson et al., 2007).In the first study, the temporal stability of the factor structure of the Acute-2007 was examined across three time-points for 317 sex offenders.The Acute-2007 met the assumption of measurement invariance and, as such, observed changes were attributed to true change on the risk-relevant propensities assessed by the Acute-2007.The factor analyses supported a one-factor model; however, additional analyses found that two factors (i.e., Approach and Collapse factors) were differentially related to other similar risk measures and recidivism.In Study 2, sex offenders were found to decrease on risk-relevant propensities during the course of community supervision.Higher risk offenders were found to change less than lower risk offenders on the Acute-2007 total scores after controlling for initial scores.The rate of offender change also significantly differed across supervision officers on behavioural indicators of intention to reoffend (Approach total scores) but not indicators of coping skills (Collapse Leigh Greiner, Leticia Gutierrez, and Leslie Helmus.You are dear friends.Thank you to Chantal Hermann and my lab mates, both past and current, for their friendship and support during this journey
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".